Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports Results

Summary: There has been an extensive discussion on whether to add flags to the results tables. This discussion has been archived at Archive1.

There are four major issues that need to be discussed.

1. What is the prefered style for the layout of the names of athletes, countries, flags and results in a typical sports results table ?
2. What are the best parameters for a sports result table template ?
3. Do we include conversions from metric to imperial ?
4. Do we include space for commentary for each event in a table?

Result listing table style: four-candidate shortlist

Of the nine table styles discussed in the archive, I think that four stand out as candidates for a final consensus. Below is a table where each row represents one of the four styles.

Style:	Gold:			Silver:			Bronze:
Style B	Rob de Castella Australia		2:10:03	Kebebe Balcha Ethiopia		2:10:27	Waldemar Cierpinski East Germany		2:10:37
Style C	Rob de Castella Australia		2:10:03	Kebebe Balcha Ethiopia		2:10:27	Waldemar Cierpinski East Germany		2:10:37
Style H	Rob de Castella AUS		2:10:03	Kebebe Balcha ETH		2:10:27	Waldemar Cierpinski DDR		2:10:37
Style I	AUS	Rob de Castella	2:10:03	ETH	Kebebe Balcha	2:10:27	DDR	Waldemar Cierpinski	2:10:37

By clicking on the style names to the left of the table it is possible to see a full table that is representative of that style.

Please indicate which of the four styles you prefer and, if possible, indicate your reasoning. If you want to understand the reasoning that led to these four styles being selected read the full discussion in Archive1. When you comment, also consider if this format should become a standard for all sporting events summarised in wikipedia. All comments and suggestions are welcome. Also be aware that this is not a formal vote but a consensus gathering excercise.

Style B

Event:	Gold:		Silver:		Bronze:
Marathon	Rob de Castella Australia	2:10:03	Kebebe Balcha Ethiopia	2:10:27	Waldemar Cierpinski East Germany	2:10:37
3,000 m Steeplechase	Patriz Ilg West Germany	8:15.06	Boguslaw Maminski Poland	8:17.03	Colin Reitz Great Britain	8:17.75

Comments on style B

• I think we should have flags in the medals table but NOT in the results table. The flags cause the tables to become cluttered with redundant information. The nationality of each athlete is already in the table so I do not see the benefit of having the flag too. (from Archive1)David D. (Talk) 04:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• The flags detract from the readability of the table of results according to tested principles of usability and information graphics. The major issue is that multiple (more than 3) colors pull the reader's eye every which way and distract from reading the text. A secondary issue is that readers are often familiar with only a few flags, so flags are less effective to communicate many-country information than text. I concur to not use flags in detailed results tables. I also empathize with the user who took the time and trouble to add the flags, having done work like this before, only to also find that it wasn't as effective. (from Archive1)-- Sitearm^Talk 17:31, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

Style C

Event:	Gold:		Silver:		Bronze:
Marathon	Rob de Castella Australia	2:10:03	Kebebe Balcha Ethiopia	2:10:27	Waldemar Cierpinski East Germany	2:10:37
3,000 m Steeplechase	Patriz Ilg West Germany	8:15.06	Boguslaw Maminski Poland	8:17.03	Colin Reitz United Kingdom	8:17.75

Comments on style C

• I think that this is the best solution and I think it's most beautiful of these 4 styles. - Darwinek 20:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• I am drawn between style B and Style C, but to pick one way or the other, I'd go with C. I do think we need to have the full country name with the entries as neither flags nor 3-letter codes are always easily identifiable, especially if you aren't familiar with them. I also think that the name of the athlete is the most important piece of information and should go before the flag, so if a flag is to be included then it should certainly be after the name, the sepatrate line in style C makes it look neat.
  The issue I do have is over the inclusion of flags. Style B looks a bit bare and bland, while Style C risks looking cluttered and hard to follow. I do however believe that style C is the best compromise out of all options and adds a bit of colour to the tables while still being fairly easy to follow compared to other styles.
  I'd also like to add my support for tables of this sort becoming standard tables for sporting results on wikipedia. I think a standard form would work well over differnet articles and be easy for different people to understand. Evil Eye 21:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like to add the following: 1) As for some readers' unfamiliarity with country codes, the easy solution to that is already implemented in the examples on this page---namely the mouse-over function, which gives the user access to the full name of any country by letting the cursor hover over the code in question. 2) As for having the flag and country name/code on a separate line below the athlete's name, I'd disapprove due to the resulting (over)use of extra vertical space. Along with the generally cluttered look, the addition of extra lines is a particularly bad thing in long tables. --Wernher 00:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that the full country name is not needed since the mouseover function will clarify the flag and/or country code if a user is unfamiliar with either. That is the main and good reason for using the flag templates. There is an added disadvantage that some country names are very long cause them to take up two lines. An Example, is Trinidad and Tobago. With the three letter code this will never be a problem David D. (Talk) 04:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Style H

Event:	Gold:		Silver:		Bronze:
Marathon	Rob de Castella AUS	2:10:03	Kebebe Balcha ETH	2:10:27	Waldemar Cierpinski DDR	2:10:37
3,000 m Steeplechase	Patriz Ilg DEU	8:15.06	Boguslaw Maminski POL	8:17.03	Colin Reitz GBR	8:17.75

Comments on style H

• The advantage of this style is that it is the most economical with space. This allows for longer names. Since the country code is small is does not distract from the athletes name. The flag and country name are always in a consistent place. A disadvantage could be that we are defining that one row is at least two lines, however, it should be considered that there is no format that can contain all this information with out using two lines for each row. Unless people have a very wide monitor!

It is hard to scan down this table since the flags clutter the columns but it is relatively easy to ignore the flags when scanning the rows. The later is probably and advantage for track and field, and many other sports, since information in each row is related. An important feature is that the cryptic flags and country codes are not a problem since mousing over either will give the full country name as a 'pop up'. David D. (Talk) 04:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• I have to agree that this style is an effective compromise. The general layout is not cluttered, it retains an official appearance which could be utilised well across the web-site, and as you point out there is no "cryptic" element at "roll over" information is clear. dok 19:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Style I

Event:	Gold:			Silver:			Bronze:
Marathon	AUS	Rob de Castella	2:10:03	ETH	Kebebe Balcha	2:10:27	DDR	Waldemar Cierpinski	2:10:37
3,000 m Steeplechase	DEU	Patriz Ilg	8:15.06	POL	Boguslaw Maminski	8:17.03	GBR	Colin Reitz	8:17.75

Comments on style I

• I would vote for this style, provided that the country code is placed after the athlete's name. For an example of this, see Rowing at the 2004 Summer Olympics#Medal summary. Regarding the example, I'm not sure that the comma between athlete name and country code is the best delimiter; perhaps just a space would do, or one might enclose the country code in parentheses. The main advantage with this style is that the athlete's name is the first, and thus the most prominent, alphanumeric information in each data cell, with the three-letter country code coming in behind. --Wernher 21:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I can see what you are saying there, but your suggestion on adapting this style is pretty much what we had on the IAAF WC pages to start with and the style with which some of us had the problems with in the first place. I don't mean to de-value your contribution, but just thought I would point this out. Evil Eye 22:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, I had a look at the relevant points from the archived discussion (too bad I missed out on at). I have some comments to the following points (selected from the archive, and reordered+repeated here): --Wernher 01:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    1. Flags at the start of an entry create a consistent appearance, as opposed to the various placement following the variable-length text.
       Indeed so.
    2. Flags allow visual scanning for specific nations, but is easier if flags are in consistent locations.
       Absolutely.
    3. For Olympic events, another option for country identification is the IOC three letter abbreviations.
       Yes, see my comment to style C (1), above.
    4. Having the flag separated from the name of the country seems somewhat undesirable.
       Although I follow the reasoning behind this, I think the visual advantage could offset the 'logical disadvantage' (see my original comment above). I'm not adamant on this, though---the logical sequence remains 'the flag and then the code'...

• If we are determined to have flags (I prefer not), this would be my favoured format. I do, however, believe it is important to have the athlete and time together it is possible to scan the name and time without making eye contact with a flag. This would be preferable for people like me, since all I care about is the athletes name and time. The nationality is not as important. I experimented putting the flag after the time (athlete:time:flag) but it did not scan well. My tendancy is to look for the result on the far right and the flag interferred with that. David D. (Talk) 04:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Having the flag first does seem to make the text flow together, so does have a different appearance. I happen to like it. There may be an issue with apparent priority of having athlete or country first. However, I'll also note that the proposal is oriented toward competitions with national teams. Although some sports don't have national teams, the nationality of competitors is quite visible. Several major auto racing series are examples. (from Archive1) (SEWilco 04:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC))
  • With regard to auto sports I presume that colomn could be used for their car number or team name. (from Archive1) David D. (Talk) 12:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• This is my least favourite of all the styles. I personalyl think the extra verticle space created by having entries on two lines is a nessetiy to have clearer results. One single line of data for the results contains a lot of info and is very hard to 'pick out' the bits one needs. Also the flag first, before the name, looks the most cluttered to me and detracts more from teh overall clarity. As for the use of IOC abbreviations, that is OK for Olympic sports, but I'm sure not every sport uses then. And having the mouse move over the to give the country name is OK, but if one doesn't know to do that it can still leave them confused over which county it is. The country name would in no circumstnces leave anyone confused over which country was meant. Evil Eye 10:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'm drawn between Styles C, H and I. Style C looks the better for me as the name of the athlete and his/her nationality are together, which I like. Style I looks good because the tables look tidier; they only use one row and the country abbreviations are limited to three letters, although I think the time and the athlete's name should be together, if possible or enclosed in brackets, which also Style H does, but consumes more space. I think the IOC abbreviations for the countries should be used in other sports as well (as a standard) so then people will get to know the country abbreviations. If I had to choose one, I would lean a little bit towards Style H. As the athlete's name and country are together, and it uses the short form (abbreviation) of the country's name (nationality of the athlete). - Nick_C 15:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'll just pitch in with another argument I see as being just a tiny bit in favor of my suggestion above, i.e. the <national flag> <athlete's name> <country code> layout: in the athlete information graphics used in the official EBU TV broadcasts from WCHA'05, no other than that exact layout is used, and to good effect---a clear and tidy presentation of the start list and result list statistics, as well as the concise lower-screen superimposed graphic slab which is put on when a particular athlete is on camera. The country code sits in its own column, so as to have all the codes aligned below each other on the screen/list/whatever. (Disclaimer: no, I don't mean we should mindlessly follow whatever standard is used in this or that medium, but I do think we should at least look at what other people/organisations have done in similar contexts.) --Wernher 23:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• If we ae using this format as a standard for sports results tables, and if we also put the imperial measurements in, the rows of the tables will be very wide (meaning we have to scroll across) or we have to use two rows anyway. - Nick_C 19:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This format actually is being formatted by your browser, while some others include two lines in the results definitions. From your phrasing you're apparently seeing a wide one-row display, while people with narrower browser windows are seeing formats such as the country abbreviation under the flag and participant names on two lines. I think most browsers will try to not require horizontal scrolling of these tables. (SEWilco 19:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC))

Flag usage policy

I did not see a consensus on the following, which obviously only is relevant when there are also results presented for a national team. (SEWilco 16:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC))

"I think the flags are very appropriate for the medals table but they are not appropriate for individual athletes." quoted from David D. That quote is still available in archive1 of this page.

Hi SEWilco, there is no consensus, and the no flag option is still one of the styles being discussed. I advertised this discussion in the WikiProject Sports so we may get more input from those editors who are probably more aware of the issues in other sports, re: the motor sport point your brought up earlier. David D. (Talk) 16:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Time to remove 'dispute alert' from some ch.ship articles?

Perhaps we should consider removing the green 'dispute alert box' from those ch.ship articles whose result listings have been mostly filled in with our current layout/flag style? One candidate is this year's ch.ships. --Wernher 00:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree. Punkmorten 17:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The tables themselves: "prettytable" or what?

Whatever the format of data entry into the tables, can I take it that we have agreed that the sp called 'pretty' style for the tables themselves has been decided upon as the best course of action? All 4 styles here use it and I think it's better than what we have already on some pages. I'm only asking this as I'm wanting to add some of the missing resuts to some of the Commomwealth Games pages and want to at least try and get the general table style right for now. Evil Eye 10:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I switched to prettytable since the lines appeared too prominent in the previous tables. The problem with prettytable is that it is too padded. I just realised that we can create our own template, but, of course, this will lead to another huge discussion. I created a template called Template:Sports result table based on the Template:Prettytable. We can edit it to hearts content. One of the huge advantages of using our own template is that if we need to tweak the tables at a later date we only have to change the template not edit every table manually. Templates are definitely the way to go and i just changed all the examples on this page to the sports result table template. See below for a comparison of the prettytables template with the sports result table template. David D. (Talk) 16:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Pretty table template:

Style:	Gold:			Silver:			Bronze:
Style B	Rob de Castella Australia		2:10:03	Kebebe Balcha Ethiopia		2:10:27	Waldemar Cierpinski East Germany		2:10:37
Style C	Rob de Castella Australia		2:10:03	Kebebe Balcha Ethiopia		2:10:27	Waldemar Cierpinski East Germany		2:10:37

Sports result table template:

Style:	Gold:			Silver:			Bronze:
Style B	Rob de Castella Australia		2:10:03	Kebebe Balcha Ethiopia		2:10:27	Waldemar Cierpinski East Germany		2:10:37
Style C	Rob de Castella Australia		2:10:03	Kebebe Balcha Ethiopia		2:10:27	Waldemar Cierpinski East Germany		2:10:37

I like the 'pretty' tables to begin with, and I can also see the advantages the 'sports result table' have over the 'pretty' table, so I don't have a problem with what you created. Evil Eye 20:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

One objection: do we need yet another table format? Won't that detract from the desired(?) harmonization/standardized look of WKP? Just wondering. --Wernher 20:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Metric and Imperial ?

There has already been a fair amount of comment on this issue at the following two talk pages, Talk:2005_World_Championships_in_Athletics; Wikipedia:Measurements_Debate.

To summarise: Americans obviously prefer imperial measurements since they are more familiar with those units. In fact, some Olympic results in track and filed have been entered as imperial only, despite the results being measured and reported in metric.

At the page for the 1988 Olympics the field events are reported in imperial only. Similarly the 1984 Olympic results were also presented in this format. I edited the 1984 Olympic results to include the reported metric measurements too leaving the imperial measurements intact.

Results presented with imperial and metric (from the 1984 Olympic page).

Event:	Gold:		Silver:		Bronze:
Shot Put	Alessandro Andrei ITA	21.26 (69'9")	Michael Carter USA	21.09 (69'2½")	Dave Laut USA	20.97 (68'9¾")
Discus	Rolf Danneberg DEU	66.60 (218'6")	Mac Wilkins USA	66.30 (217'6")	John Powell USA	65.46 (214'9")

Results presented without the imperial conversion.

Event:	Gold:		Silver:		Bronze:
Shot Put	Alessandro Andrei ITA	21.26	Michael Carter USA	21.09	Dave Laut USA	20.97
Discus	Rolf Danneberg DEU	66.60	Mac Wilkins USA	66.30	John Powell USA	65.46

I created a similar page for the 1986 European athletic championships but I did not add the imperial equivalents. This is pretty much in line with the metric only stance. The assumption on my behalf is that few US contributors would find this page interesting and it is time consuming to convert all the heights and distances. If, however, a US contributor wants to do those conversions and add them to the article I would not complain although I believe those measurements are not necessary.

Metric should always be present since as someone mentioned in the Wikipedia:Measurements_Debate, "The advantage of the metric system is that it is unambiguous". Nevertheless, we need to establish a policy for the inclusion of non metric measurements in these tables. David D. (Talk) 15:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

If we are including imperial measurements in the table, Style C or H would definately suite it. As we need two rows otherwise the tables will be wider (wider then the page, meaning we have to scroll across). - Nick_C 16:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

One argument clearly favoring the metric-only stand is that even the American athletes themselves seem to be very comfortable using the metric terms when discussing the various race events in TV interviews. I have heard examples of that repeatedly the last couple of days, following the WCHA'05 on TV. Everyone seems perfectly happy with the fact that the events are actually called "400 m Hurdles" and so forth. The only event I know of that's referred to in imperial units is the Mile run, quite unsurprisingly. But perhaps the throwing-stuff-events are different, what do I know. --Wernher 23:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It's the throwing and jumping events that use imperial. David D. (Talk) 05:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we should use only metric system. - Darwinek 21:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

What about this layout:

Event:	Gold:		Silver:		Bronze:
Shot Put	Alessandro Andrei ITA	21.26 (69'9")	Michael Carter USA	21.09 (69'2½")	Dave Laut USA	20.97 (68'9¾")
Discus	Rolf Danneberg DEU	66.60 (218'6")	Mac Wilkins USA	66.30 (217'6")	John Powell USA	65.46 (214'9")

Line breaks may keep the table from becoming too wide. (Although I think that no line breaks is also fine.) Small type makes the imperial units less intrusive. I don't really care for imperial units, but then I'm European... As for "official policy" for their inclusion, my vote is this: don't bother adding them if you don't want to, but also don't revert if someone else inserts them, provided it is done in a consistent way and with proper formatting. GregorB 22:02, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think this small type scheme is a brilliant solution, GregorB! We get to have our cake and eat it too. :-) --Wernher 16:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I also like Gegor B's format. David D. (Talk) 19:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with GregorB. I would never insert imperial units, but if someone does (preferably as shown above), I won't revert it. Punkmorten 17:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Do we include commentary?

The later two pages for the World athletic championships (for an example see the 2003 World Championships page) have included a box in the table for a pertinent commentary on each event. This is quite useful for context. Nevertheless, it breaks up the table enough that it could be inappropriate. What is Wikipedia’s role with respect to presenting these results? Is our aim to document the results alone or to document bring them more to life with a short commentary? David D. (Talk) 16:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is an example of results with commentary from the 2003 World Championships page

Event:	Gold:		Silver:		Bronze:
100 m	Kim Collins KNA	10.07	Darrel Brown TTO	10.08	Darren Campbell GBR	10.08
	Reigning World and Olympic Champion Maurice Greene was eliminated in the semi-finals, being out of shape all season, leaving the final without a clear favourite. The final was very close, with early leader Collins eventually edging out Brown, Campbell and Dwain Chambers, who all finished in 10.08 s. The quarter-finals saw great controversy when American Jon Drummond refused to leave the track after being disqualified for a false start.
200 m	John Capel USA	20.30	Darvis Patton USA	20.31	Shingo Suetsugu JPN	20.38
	John Capel finished eight in the 2000 Olympic final when he thought there was a false start. He played American football for the Chicago Bears and the Kansas City Chiefs, but wasn't very successful either. In Paris, he beat his friend Patton in a close finish.
400 m	Jerome Young USA	44.50	Tyree Washington USA	44.77	Marc Raquil FRA	44.79
	Former Jamaican Young clearly beat compatriot and favourite Washington. Crowd favourite Raquil, who was in the back of the field with just 100 m to go raced to a bronze medal in the final metres. After the race, it was revealed that Young had tested positive for doping in 1999, but was let off by the United States Track and Field Association, allowing him to compete in the 2000 Summer Olympics, where he won a gold medal with the American 4 x 400 m relay team.

Here is an example of the same results table without commentary, although, a spare cell remains in the table for comments to be added at a later date.

Games	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Event:	Gold:		Silver:		Bronze:
100 m	Kim Collins KNA	10.07	Darrel Brown TTO	10.08	Darren Campbell GBR	10.08
200 m	John Capel USA	20.30	Darvis Patton USA	20.31	Shingo Suetsugu JPN	20.38
400 m	Jerome Young USA	44.50	Tyree Washington USA	44.77	Marc Raquil FRA	44.79

I see no problem with them. Over the years many events have had changes in results or exceptional circumstances that need to be noted, this year is unlikely to be any different. I see these spaces as ideal for including a brief note for these occurrences, rather than noting them separate somewhere else on the page. I'd guess it would be possible to delete any boxes which are unused at a later date, and I'd consider their deletion to be easier than having to add them in if they were needed for one or two events. (taken from 2005 WC talk page and written by Evil Eye 22:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Same here, the commentary boxes are needed, and can be left with no text, rather then removing them, so a person can fill it in at a later date, as re-adding them in after deleting them can be difficult. - Nick_C 16:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

No problemo. Commentary boxes are needed. They can better bring the game spirit to Wikipedia. - Darwinek 21:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

An excellent solution. Eliminates the need for separate paragraph text of a particular comment or description of an event. However, I find the comments in e.g. 2004 IAAF World_Indoor Championships article somewhat too verbose. Comments should be more concise and to the point, e.g. like here: [1]. GregorB 21:39, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Result abbreviation

I know thi is only a minor point, but when it comes to including result abbreviations after results (such as PB or WR) we need to decide whether the letters will follow immediately after the resutls or whether they will appear in brackets after the results. The 2005 World Championships in Athletics article is a prime example of use of both methods, each seems to have been used equally up to now, even with out concensus between adjacent results. Personally I don't mind which method is used, but would like to see a decision made. Evil Eye 20:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization of ch.ship honors

We should agree on the use of capitals in titles such as "Olympic champion", "world champion", etc. I'm not 100% sure, but I strongly suspect that the only word to consistently capitalize is---you're right---"Olympic". Comments, anyone? --Wernher 03:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, only Olympic, should be capitalized David D. (Talk) 19:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sports record codes

Regarding the new Template:Sports record codes (which was somewhat overdue, it seems), we probably need to discuss where it should be placed on the relevant sports pages. For its introduction, I just put it beneath each table, but I'm not sure I like it best that way. Perhaps placing it just below the section headings "Men's results" and "Women's results" would be better, I don't know. --Wernher 03:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Wernher, I like your template. I played around with it making some 'bold' additions. I also changed the location in the womens tables in the current world championships page to experiment with placement. What do you think? David D. (Talk) 19:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Great. I've now done the same with the remaining tables. Still, I wonder whether my suggestion above would be at least as good---as it is now, the reader has to scroll to the end of long tables to get to the codes. But perhaps we should require readers to do that, if they're at all interested in understanding the codes anyway? :-) --Wernher 20:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Another question: how come the tables' line of Sports record codes are taller (vertically bigger) than the head line ("Gold, Silver, Bronze")? The tables would really look better if both of those lines were of the same height. I have tried to find out about this but wasn't able to do anything about it, alas. --Wernher 03:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• I found another record code here. Look at Heat 2 and Brazil. It says AR, but I don't know what it means. - Nick_C 14:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

That means Area Record (Area probably meaning continents, but CR is used for "Championship Record") the areas are: North America, South America, Europe (including Russia, as far as I can see), Africa, Asia and Oceania. So that was a new South American record. /AB-me 17:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also just heard on TV that Christina Obergföll, of Germany has just beaten the European Record in the Javelin. (She beat the European record with a throw of 70.03m), so that will explain what AR means. Results. - Nick_C 18:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

GAN backlog reduction - Sports and recreation

As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sports Notability

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC on the use of flag icons for sportspeople

An RfC discussion about the MOS:FLAG restriction on the use of flag icons for sportspeople has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. We invite all interested participants to provide their opinion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Sports is up for featured portal consideration

This is a courtesy message to inform the members of this project that I have nominated Portal:Sports for featured portal status. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sports. The featured portal criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. Please feel free to weigh in. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata

I have started a Wikidata taskforce for sports results: wikidata:Wikidata:Sport results task force. I would love assistance from this project on how to build an ontology that accurately describes most events in detail. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability

An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)